The best oratory exists when rhetoric and delivery match the actual needs/desires of the people at a particular historical moment. There is more substance to great oratory than may appear at first glance. The substance lies in the underlying reasons that an audience is receptive to the message. With Obama, we hear words like "hope" and "change"; but what we understand on some level is more concrete, and different from person to person. I, for one, understand this to be a push back and the cynicism and deceit of the Bush administration (and, frankly, the Clinton administration). When you think of the leading lines of the Gettysburg Address, I'm sure folks at the time understood those lofty phrases to mean something concrete, like winning the war and ensuring the continuation of the union and American democracy. Just because words are uplifting and "easy on the ears" doesn't make them empty. Indeed, the very opposite might be true.

Good post, Rich.

But since when were the best Presidents micromanagers and not speakers? Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan - all great Presidents, all great orators. In fact, I can't really think of any great President who wasn't a great speaker.

Actually Jefferson was a lousy speaker. Preferred to write rather than speak. Some think Jefferson wrote rather well.

Kennedy's empty sloganeering, fashioned by an equally brainless Ted Sorenson, no doubt thrilled his audiences.

Undoubtedly you are right that a great orator has great power. No argument with that. But it might not be wise to confuse oratorical skills with greatness otherwise. Andrew Harding is an exceptional example of oratorical skill despite precious little evidence of intelligence. Obviously Reagan was another.

Best, Terry

thomaspaine: A Hitler comparison? Really? Gutless. Absolutely gutless. You sicken me. Did you know Fox Radio did that yesterday or is it just an unhappy coincidence?

You're not worthy of your handle.

Jeeze-- you guys are full of it.

I said I WAS NOT comparing him to Hitler but instead pointing out the stupidity of the arguement that We should vote for Obama over Clinton because he is a better orator. I was saying if you would get off your high horse that even great orators are not great leaders and some great leaders are not great orators.

pathetic that you misread my comment. That is what is wrong with this country some of us try to point out something and instead of listening you take a strawman arguement. I repeat that I as not comparing Him to HITLER just disagreeing with the arguement that our leaders need to be great orators and pointing out how that can get us into trouble. Do tell how Was comparing him to HITLER.....

Senator Obama -- In your speech on Super Tuesday, perhaps by coincidence, you used key phrases from a 1984 speech by Jesse Jackson (“Our time has come. Our time has come” DNC), a poem by June Jordan (“we are the ones we have been waiting for” -- “Poem for South African Women”), and a song by Norman Hutchins (“a change is coming”) – but you did not credit any of them for the key lines in your speech. Isn’t this the kind of speechwriting that doomed Joe Biden’s presidential campaign in the 1980s, and why should your speeches be held to a different standard?

Burn: Let's talk about what he told the "people who voted for him" and is it fair to say that his position on the war has not been a model of consistency?

Senator Obama: As a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2003 and 2004, you said repeatedly that you would have voted against an $87 billion war budget that had been requested by President Bush. But since being elected to the Senate, you have voted for more than 300 billion in war funding. Are your votes to fund the war inconsistent with the promises you made to the people of Illinois?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/

In recent comments to the press, Clinton said:

"Some weeks one of us is up and the other is down, and then we reverse it . . . It’s a long and winding road.”

And she didn't credit Lennon/McCarthy! Better get her for plagiarism quick!

burnedoutdem:

I'm with you 100%. The aftermath of September 11th will have a lasting impact on this country, and it won't just stop with what happened in New York, Pennsylvania, and Northern Virginia. It will forever be a dividing line between leadership and manipulation, between justice and vengeance, and between sound judgment and irrational haste. That is no less true now than it was in the election in 2004, when we had a ticket with two Democrats who voted for war. How enthusiastic were people about Kerry-Edwards? Iraq is a mistake. It's not a mistake that could only be identified in hindsight. There were plenty of people who stood up to say that it was wrong before it happened. I am proud to be among them and I'm ashamed that I didn't do more to stop it.

Of the three remaining candidates for the presidency, only one of them stands on the right side of those lines. There are other issues and other considerations to be made as we move forward and examine our future course as a nation, but no one should try to convince me that they are the most ready now if they weren't the most ready when so much was on the line. No one should try to convince me that they are ready to lead this nation when they were subjected to torture and can't decide, from one day to the next, whether or not they stand against it. No one should tro to convince me that they will be "ready on day one" when they didn't even bother to read the National Intelligence Estimate in advance of the decision to lead this nation to war. In spite of George's folly, we still have the most powerful military in the world. I would like the next 8 years to be lead by someone who understands that the most important component of awesome power is colossal restraint.

I find your analysis flawed and simplistic, but your use of the inflammatory derogation "Billary" should probably tell me that you are preaching to the choir anyway.

Be that as it may, a couple of points:

1. Washington, contrary to what you have asserted, and as others have noted here, was not a great orator. Not in the least. The address that he made to the Continental Congress resigning his commission as commander-in-chief of the army in 1783 was written by Thomas Jefferson. His Farewell Address on leaving the presidency in 1796 was a collaborative work with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay and was never delivered orally. On two occasions when he needed to inspire his troops, he used the words of others. In July of 1776, he had the Declaration of Independence read to the army that was assembling in New York City. And in December of that year, he had copies of Thomas Paine's "The American Crisis" ("These are the times that try men's souls...") distributed and read to the bedraggled troops waiting to cross the Delaware River to attack the Hessians at Trenton.

Read any biography of Washington, though, and you will see that he was the very textbook definition of micromanager. And thank God for it, because the army bureaucracy the Continental Congress had put in place was almost completely disfunctional. There was no lack of inspiring oratory in the Revolutionary period, but there was a crying need for competent management. And Washington, mediocre orator and less than brilliant general, was an excellent manager.

2. If you can't think of any presidents that were not great orators, you're not thinking very hard. Calvin Coolidge is not known for his oratory. Nor James Monroe. Nor Harry Truman. Nor Dwight Eisenhower. As I've said in another comment, there is no one leadership style that all strong leaders must use. A leader simply has to find his own and use it well.

3. Sen. Clinton has never said that "speaking ability doesn't mean jack." You are setting up a straw man. The criticism is that speaking ability isn't everything, that somewhere along the line you need to back up the rhetoric with concrete policies and put them into action.

Frankly, though, I am puzzled as to why Obama's speeches meet with such acclamation. John Edwards's speeches blow me away, but Obama's leave me cold. I find them tedious and "preachy." I can't put my finger on exactly why, but that's how they make me react.

I agree with Rich about how not to loose the forrest among the trees. Too many people become swept by popular belief and trends.

As stated previously, the vote on whether to enter a war or not is a good example. I believe people got lost in the trees. People needed to understand the overall positives and negatives along with what was accurate information and what was not.

President Lincoln's greatest talent and achievement was his ability to have the broad minded perspective that slavery was wrong. In fact, he believed that slavery was a direct contradiction to the fact that "All men are created equal..." In addition to this, he was able to understand the other big picture: the immediate abolition of slavery would fracture the nation. He made compromises at first by keepin slavery legal in certain states in order to keep the nation intact as long as he could. Eventually, the civil war would become inevitable. Without every state in a nation understanding the great philosophy of democracy and following it, the existence of such a marvelous country would be no more.

This great broad vision gave President Lincoln the ability to understand the entire situation and adapt to the current events. Although not impossible, a micromanager would have a difficult time understanding this and accomplishing such a great task.

On the contrary is Clinton. One example is Clinton's strong push for socialized medicine when she was the First Lady: healthcare paid by the people/government. I understand the problem of the uninsured patients and the devastating effects, but I wonder how many people realize that once medical care is socialized, there are negative consequences too.

In socialized medicine countries...
People have to wait a year before having gallbladders removed and just suffer from chronic pain, not to mention cancer operations having to be done several months later after diagnosis.
When patients are told that they have to wait 3 weeks for there gallbladder to be removed, they become extremely angry. Imagine, being told one year. Also, can you picture being told that you have cancer, but that they will not remove it for several months while you wait and continue to become anxious. How would you like to sit in a hospital for 7 to 14 days while your appendicitis is treated with antibiotics instead of one day in the hospital after removing the appendix surgically. How would you like to be told that you can not get dialysis and will go into a coma and die because you are too old...in some countries, when you are older than 65 years old, you do not get dialysis.

I am not saying yes or no on socialized medicine, but I wonder how many people know both sides, including negative ones as mentioned above not to mention the decline in innovative medical drugs/surgeries/devices such as the insulin pump. Will people make the decisions understanding both sides or just get swept into the popular idea of health insurance for all.

I digress...I agree with Rich on Obama's great ability to inspire people and understand the big picture.